What Can We Agree On?

This is always a controversial one, so I will do my best to avoid any of the obvious areas of disagreement by only using relative terms. The terms I use and the details have been used to identify rocks (famously by the canal builders of England in the 18th century) and the system was developed by creationists.

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period. 4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

What this means is that we can say categorically that in the Devonian the first trilobites and ammonites are found in the fossil record, and that after the Permian rocks there are no more trilobites and that after the Cretaceous there are no ammonites found.

There are so many keyboards being bashed around because we have never found common ground.

No creationist that I have ever debated has actually admitted to me that there are particular fossils found in particular strata. It has been pointed out a couple of times excluding my comment above that the discovery of this fact or series of facts can be attributed to creationists, so I am always suprised that creationists shy away from accepting this which is obvious from even a casual glance at the evidence.

There are so many keyboards being bashed around because we have never found common ground.

No creationist that I have ever debated has actually admitted to me that there are particular fossils found in particular strata.Ã‚Â It has been pointed out a couple of times excluding my comment above that the discovery of this fact or series of facts can be attributed to creationists, so I am always suprised that creationists shy away from accepting this which is obvious from even a casual glance at the evidence.

Just a day ago my post in brief reference to this subject was ignored, and the reply made to me simply attempted to relegate any of William Smith's work to being meaningless because he wasn't "qualified".....

Just a day ago my post in brief reference to this subject was ignored, and the reply made to me simply attempted to relegate any of William Smith's work to being meaningless because he wasn't "qualified".....

That's criminal. He had enough trouble in his life with work being attributed to others and even now people can make claims about him like that.

The stupid thing is anyone can go to London and see his geological map of Britain, the first geological map anywhere in the world. To dismiss that amazing, lifelong piece of work that is fully verifiable and verified just because he didn't have a degree is doing him a huge disservice.

That's criminal. He had enough trouble in his life with work being attributed to others and even now people can make claims about him like that.

The stupid thing is anyone can go to London and see his geological map of Britain, the first geological map anywhere in the world. To dismiss that amazing, lifelong piece of work that is fully verifiable and verified just because he didn't have a degree is doing him a huge disservice.

In my opinion Smith is in contention for being considered the most notable geologist in history. There are of course other giants such as Hutton.

This is always a controversial one, so I will do my best to avoid any of the obvious areas of disagreement by only using relative terms. The terms I use and the details have been used to identify rocks (famously by the canal builders of England in the 18th century) and the system was developed by creationists.

This system you talk of was pioneered by Gap Creationists, not YEC's. Gap Creationists believe in an old earth, and some even believe in evolution.

Thank you for that, but you haven't dealt with the main issue on the first brannch of this thread, which is Smith's contribution to science. His legacy of the world's first geological map was a huge step forwards and a great scientific achievement whether he had a degree or not.

Also, you have not spoken about whether you agree with the OP or not? I am trying to find some common ground, but no creationist has yet to reply whether what I say is agreeable or not.

One more thing, in my introduction thread "Hi" we started talking about science in a bit more detail, I would appreciate it if you could continue that conversation, though feel free to ignore that if you feel that there is more than enough to keep you going elsewhere. This is a time consuming pastime and I do not want to put pressure on you at all.

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata. A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity:

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this a circular argument?"Ã¢â‚¬â€Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it?"Ã¢â‚¬â€Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

Also why would Young Earther Creationist's care about William Smith? Do you guys care about men like James Ussher or Flavius Josephus?

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata. A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity:

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this a circular argument?"Ã¢â‚¬â€Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it?"Ã¢â‚¬â€Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up. You didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t read my post. I never once mentioned dating of anything. This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

Please, read my post.

Also, you should care about insulting people that do not deserve that insult. I have read a bit of Josephus, and he is pleasant enough, but I know little about Ussher but would not make any negative comments about him until I knew more about my subject.

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up.Ã‚Â You didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t read my post.Ã‚Â I never once mentioned dating of anything.Ã‚Â This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

Please, read my post.

Also, you should care about insulting people that do not deserve that insult.Ã‚Â I have read a bit of Josephus, and he is pleasant enough, but I know little about Ussher but would not make any negative comments about him until I knew more about my subject.

William Smith did not consider organic evolution when doing his work. His work only could be used to do relative dating, which does not allow room for any of the claims that young earth creationists make about circular reasoning. In doing so they present no logical basis for their claim.

Why bring up Bishop Ussher or Josephus unless one either does not understand the question at hand, which is very possible, or one wishes to dodge the issue?

But on the other hand one has to marvel at somebody who could use the same source material available to all of us and yet be able to precisely calculate the beginning of the universe even though so many thousands of years have past. "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, which beginning of time, according to this chronology, occurred at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October in the year 710 of the Julian period.Ã¢â‚¬Â (4004 BC) This is either inspired genius or evidence of a great imagination.

I honor Josephus as an important historian, recording events in an important time.

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up.Ã‚Â You didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t read my post.Ã‚Â I never once mentioned dating of anything.Ã‚Â This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

Heres is what you wrote:

''1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period. 4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.''

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

''1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period. 4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.''

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

You sure have interjected a number of assumptions not made in the original post.

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

When did I mention dating; Geode talked about relative dating, but I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t? When did I say millions of years? You are not reading the points that I made.

The naming of the rocks as Devonian etc was made before any idea of the age of the Earth was established.

Are you basically asking if we can all agree that certain types of fossils are found only in certain layers of rock, and the naming of the layers and their age is neither here nor there?

Yes. Please note this, Cassiterides.

You really don't have a clue what you are typing...

The Devonian age was invented by geologists who believed in an old earth. Then you expect YEC's to agree with it. Then you moan when we refuse it or don't agree with it and say re-read your post.

This is a waste of time...

It isn't a waste of time. Please, for the sake of argument I am willing to accept the 6,000 year time frame for now.

I am willing, for now, to drop any pretensions to evolution or any theory. Look at my points again.

Are certain fossils always found with other certain fossils? No dating, no evolutionary assumptions. If I now go to Lyme Regis, and crack open a few rocks, I will find ammonite and icthyosaur fossils. Whereever icthyosaur fossils are found you will also find ammonites.

This is either true or false. No theory is involved in this. The fossils are either found in particular places or they are at random. I am not attempting to explain anything by this, just trying to find out if you are able to see this.

Do not get hung up on terminology. Just use Devonian as a convenient label without using any presupposition.

Are certain fossils always found with other certain fossils? No dating, no evolutionary assumptions. If I now go to Lyme Regis, and crack open a few rocks, I will find ammonite and icthyosaur fossils.

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.

This is either true or false. No theory is involved in this. The fossils are either found in particular places or they are at random.

They are found in random places, hence why evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.